IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i16p8878-d619941.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Anaerobic Power Assessment in CrossFit ® Athletes: An Agreement Study

Author

Listed:
  • Tomás Ponce-García

    (Department of Human Physiology, Histology, Pathological Anatomy and Sports Physical Education, University of Málaga, 29071 Málaga, Spain)

  • Javier Benítez-Porres

    (Department of Human Physiology, Histology, Pathological Anatomy and Sports Physical Education, University of Málaga, 29071 Málaga, Spain)

  • Jerónimo Carmelo García-Romero

    (Department of Human Physiology, Histology, Pathological Anatomy and Sports Physical Education, University of Málaga, 29071 Málaga, Spain)

  • Alejandro Castillo-Domínguez

    (Department of Nursing and Podiatry, University of Málaga, 29071 Málaga, Spain)

  • José Ramón Alvero-Cruz

    (Department of Human Physiology, Histology, Pathological Anatomy and Sports Physical Education, University of Málaga, 29071 Málaga, Spain)

Abstract

Anaerobic power and capacity are considered determinants of performance and are usually assessed in athletes as a part of their physical capacities’ evaluation along the season. For that purpose, many field tests have been created. The main objective of this study was to analyze the agreement between four field tests and a laboratory test. Nineteen CrossFit ® (CF) athletes were recruited for this study (28.63 ± 6.62 years) who had been practicing CF for at least one year. Tests performed were: (1) Anaerobic Squat Test at 60% of bodyweight (AST60); (2) Anaerobic Squat Test at 70% of bodyweight (AST70); (3) Repeated Jump Test (RJT); (4) Assault Bike Test (ABT); and (5) Wingate Anaerobic Test on a cycle ergometer (WG). All tests consisted of 30 s of max effort. The differences among methods were tested using a repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) and effect size. Agreement between methods was performed using Bland–Altman analysis. Analysis of agreement showed systematic bias in all field test PP values, which varied between −110.05 (AST60 PP —WG PP ) and 463.58 (ABT PP —WG PP ), and a significant proportional error in ABT PP by rank correlation ( p < 0.001). Repeated-measures ANOVA showed significant differences among PP values ( F (1.76,31.59) = 130.61, p =< 0.001). In conclusion, since to our knowledge, this is the first study to analyze the agreement between various methods to estimate anaerobic power in CF athletes. Apart from ABT, all tests showed good agreement and can be used interchangeably in CF athletes. Our results suggest that AST and RJT are good alternatives for measuring the anaerobic power in CF athletes when access to a laboratory is not possible.

Suggested Citation

  • Tomás Ponce-García & Javier Benítez-Porres & Jerónimo Carmelo García-Romero & Alejandro Castillo-Domínguez & José Ramón Alvero-Cruz, 2021. "The Anaerobic Power Assessment in CrossFit ® Athletes: An Agreement Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-12, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:16:p:8878-:d:619941
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/16/8878/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/16/8878/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rafael Martínez-Gómez & Pedro L. Valenzuela & Lidia B. Alejo & Jaime Gil-Cabrera & Almudena Montalvo-Pérez & Eduardo Talavera & Alejandro Lucia & Susana Moral-González & David Barranco-Gil, 2020. "Physiological Predictors of Competition Performance in CrossFit Athletes," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(10), pages 1-12, May.
    2. S. Brandon Shaw & Mayur Dullabh & Gillian Forbes & Jamie-Lee Brandkamp & Ina Shaw, 2015. "Analysis of physiological determinants during a single bout of Crossfit," International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(3), pages 809-815, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Marcos Jusdado-García & Rubén Cuesta-Barriuso, 2021. "Soft Tissue Mobilization and Stretching for Shoulder in CrossFitters: A Randomized Pilot Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(2), pages 1-10, January.
    2. Antonio Cejudo, 2022. "Predicting the Clean Movement Technique in Crossfit ® Athletes Using an Optimal Upper-Limb Range of Motion: A Prospective Cohort Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-15, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:16:p:8878-:d:619941. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.